The United States withdraws from UNESCO

They're getting ready to bomb Iran's UNESCO sites. They did bomb several UNESCO sites in Yugoslavia and other places while they left. Their boy Grossi also told the whole world that there is a big target on a UNESCO site a short while back.

Makes me wonder if officials at UNESCO even cares about the decision. "Oh that again?" Probably already used to this.

  1984 withdraw Reagan
  2003 rejoin   Bush
  2011 protest  Obama (forced by law)
  2017 withdraw Trump
  2023 rejoin   Biden
  2025 withdraw Trump

If you abandon it completely something else might rise up - but funding/participating only up to a point, it works to suppress it - see Ukraine aid policies aswell

Tbf, if you remove the Biden 2023 pledge, the rest makes sense:

In the two decades between 1984 and 2003, UNESCO implemented a number of reforms in management+transparency+politicization, and the U.S. returned.

Then Palestine was admitted, and the U.S. left.

Cycle of politician appeasing their genocidal masters until the government start to realize what that means exactly at which point we pull back to humanity.

"In 2011, the United States stopped funding Unesco because of what was then a forgotten, 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member. Various efforts by President Barack Obama to overturn the legal restriction narrowly failed in Congress, and the United States lost its vote at the organization after two years of nonpayment, in 2013."

https://web.archive.org/web/20220503183152/https://www.nytim...

Obama didn't do anything (other than follow the law at the time):

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224180231/https://foreignpo...

I really wish we weren't a puppet state of Israel. What they're doing in Palestine currently turns my stomach. It's one thing to get your people back after the horrible attack from Hamas, it's another to mow down people who are just trying to get food with a submachine gun.

Thanks for reminding us that Obama also sucked.

This must be the UN headquarters. Flags everywhere.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

I’m sure the British would have described the American revolution in similar ways.

If I had to guess (putting on a hat I don't usually wear):

Recognition of Palestine as a member state; resolutions referring to certain contested sites (e.g., Jerusalem's Old City, Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif) primarily using their Arabic names; promotion of gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as support for comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs; emphasis on climate change action, including its designation of World Heritage Sites at risk due to global warming; alignment with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (specifically SDGs related to gender, education, and environmental goals); and advocacy for internet governance initiatives

They say it very clearly: acknowledgeing Palestinians exist.

Compassion, intelligence, generosity

Something something don't launch missiles across sovereign nation borders something avoid blocking food aid something.

The ramblings of the anti-war set...

The recognition and admittance of the State of Palestine.

The announcement calls out two things, admission of Palestine as a member state and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Goals are defined here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals

> Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services

> Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land [...] [This goal seems to state that poor people should own just as much land as rich people. That's insane, but even ignoring that, the goal definitely states that renting is evil and everyone needs to own.]

> Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions

> Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol

> Indicator 3.5.1: Alcohol per capita consumption (aged 15 years and older) within a calendar year in litres of pure alcohol [In other words, the UN considers itself to be achieving this goal if people drink less alcohol than they used to. There is no indicator for problems caused by substance abuse.]

> Target 3.7: By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information, and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes

> Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including [...]

> Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education [...]

> Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

> Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

> Indicator 4.5.1: Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list

> Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development

> Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive [...]

> Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome [...]

> Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality

> Target 10.a: [we're still on the goal "reduce inequality"] Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries [...]

> Target 9.2: Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's share of employment and gross domestic product [If they really mean this, I'll admit that it swings the opposite way from what I would have expected. I have a suspicion that they don't want this to happen in developed countries. The indicators don't disambiguate. Either way it's a divisive cause.]

> Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change

> Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

> Indicator 12.2.1: Material footprint, material footprint per capita, and material footprint per GDP ["We want people to have less stuff."]

> Indicator 12.2.2: Domestic material consumption, domestic material consumption per capita, and domestic material consumption per GDP ["We want people to have less stuff."]

> Target 14.5: By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas

> Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

> Indicator 16.b.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months

I wouldn't call this an ideologically neutral set of goals, no.

Target 16.1 seems fine, though I'm a little surprised they didn't use the "By 2030, end all [...]" phrasing.

UNESCO is against the US-backed Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people, and is against the theft of Palestinian land. That's it - they simply don't support murdering children.

And the US's contributions to the specific beneficiary countries/programs by Quarter: https://core.unesco.org/en/country/usa/contribution?biennium...

(Breakdown by beneficiary country & program is at the bottom of the page.)

What I should be reading here? It's a very long document.

Palestine was mentioned once in that document.

"President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said."

I have come to think of UNESCO with regard to their World Heritage sites (I saw in the news that Neuschwanstein was just recently added), but one of my favorite science books when I was growing up I found was compiled by UNESCO, "700 Science Experiments For Everyone" [1]. I loved the way it showed you how to set up a modest "lab" with inexpensive (or found) things. Perhaps they were considering poorer communities/nations.

[1] https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780385052757

Some history is called for here. The UNESCO issue extends far beyond Trump.

Under the Obama administration, the US stopped financing UNESCO in 2011(!) after it voted to include Palestine as a member state that year.

The Trump administration decided to withdraw fully from the agency in 2017.

The Biden administration rejoined UNESCO in 2023 and agreed to pay it $600 million(!) in back dues.

Now, the Trump administration is quitting it again.

> it isn't effective until December 31, 2026 so there is plenty of time to chicken out.

That's within the current administration. Unless a change in congress can prevent this, it's a done deal.

> This administration has zero ability to build or bring people together […]

Someone observed a lot of stuff that Trump is doing is through Executive Orders because he really can't do deals. Of course when (some of) his desires overlap with (some of) others', we get:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act

which is mostly about implementing:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

> […] so there is plenty of time to chicken out.

TACO:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out

* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/02/dona...

(Being reliant on TACO may backfire at some point.)

Ironically the claim about corruption also applies to this admin. (See crypto scams for access to the president, and the Epstein files promises for well-known examples)

I do agree with them that there is a 'rot' in these institutes. Though I don't know anything specific about the UNESCO that would warrant the withdrawal.

For institutes like the UN and UNRWA it does ring true however. It is wild to see claims of genocide where there isn't one and zero claims or calls for arrest when clear unambiguous genocidal massacres start taking place. UNRWA funded and run schools having theater classes where the children role-play murdering Jews is absurd and shouldn't be happening. (To name an example from before the 7th)

The UN should be setting a singular standard and holding everyone to account roughly equally. Not this clear and open corruption of its proclaimed principles. Whether it's in the main body or it's subsidiaries.

The current media and political landscape is a joke, there don't seem to be any standards. Frankly the future looks rather bleak. I really hope we can find to way back to 'common sense'. Good journalism, holding politicians to account and treating everyone equally, holding them to the same standards.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]